VOTER ENROLMENT UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT: SUPREME COURT DEFERS SIR HEARING AS FORM 6 CONTROVERSY INTENSIFIES

October 28, 2026

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 28, 2026 — The Supreme Court has postponed the next hearing in a series of petitions challenging the functioning of the Election Commission of India and its decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls until November 17, granting petitioners additional time to respond to the poll panel’s defence. The proceedings have brought renewed attention to questions surrounding institutional accountability, electoral transparency and the rules governing the registration of new voters.

During Tuesday’s hearing, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, considered allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had taken important decisions concerning the electoral revision exercise without the required collective approval of the Election Commission.

The petitions challenge the decision-making process within the constitutional body and seek judicial scrutiny of the circumstances in which key decisions were made. The Election Commission, however, has rejected the allegations, maintaining that its decisions concerning the SIR exercise were taken unanimously by the three-member commission.

The court granted the petitioners time to file their rejoinders to the counter-affidavit submitted by the Election Commission. The next hearing has been tentatively scheduled for November 17, when the court is expected to examine the competing submissions and the issues raised by the petitions.

A significant development during the hearing concerned a request by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, for an order directing the preservation of internal files, official notings and correspondence exchanged between Kumar and the other two election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The petitioners believe these records could help establish whether the disputed decisions were taken collectively or unilaterally.

The bench did not issue the requested interim direction but indicated that it would examine the relevant issues when the matter returned before it. The question of internal records has assumed importance because the dispute centres not only on the substance of the Election Commission’s decisions but also on the process through which those decisions were reached.

The proceedings also addressed a separate petition filed by Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Dola Sen, which alleges irregularities concerning changes to Form 6, the application used by eligible citizens seeking inclusion in electoral rolls. The Supreme Court issued notice to the Election Commission, seeking its response to the allegations.

The controversy concerns an additional declaration associated with the SIR process that asks applicants to provide information linking themselves or their parents or grandparents to the 2002 electoral rolls. Critics argue that such a requirement could create difficulties for new voters who cannot establish the requested connection, potentially complicating their efforts to secure enrolment.

The Election Commission has denied amending the statutory Form 6. In its affidavit, the commission maintained that the declaration was a separate document prescribed under the orders governing the revision exercise and was not part of the legally prescribed application form. It also explained that the declaration had been revised to allow applicants to provide details relating to themselves or their relatives in the earlier electoral rolls, potentially reducing the need for additional supporting documents.

The commission acknowledged, however, that the manner in which the declaration was displayed on its online platform could give the impression that Form 6 itself had been amended. It maintained that the underlying statutory form had not been changed.

The distinction is legally significant. Form 6 is governed by the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, while the Election Commission exercises separate powers in conducting electoral-roll revision. Whether the additional declaration falls within those powers, and whether its implementation complies with the applicable legal framework, remains a matter for judicial consideration.

The Supreme Court had previously clarified that it had neither approved nor rejected the alleged modifications to Form 6. It had also indicated that it wanted to examine the records to determine who had made the changes. The latest proceedings have therefore renewed scrutiny of the relationship between the commission’s administrative authority and the statutory safeguards governing voter registration.

The wider petitions also question whether decisions concerning the SIR exercise were taken in accordance with Article 324 of the Constitution and the relevant statutory provisions governing the Election Commission. The poll panel has defended its procedures, asserting that its decisions were unanimous and that internal observations or suggestions made during the processing of files do not, by themselves, constitute final decisions of the commission.

The court has not yet ruled on the competing allegations. The postponement provides the petitioners with an opportunity to examine the Election Commission’s affidavit and submit their responses before the matter proceeds further.

The dispute carries broader implications for the administration of elections in India. Electoral rolls determine who can exercise the right to vote, making the procedures for enrolling new voters and revising existing records matters of considerable public importance. Any additional documentation requirements must be assessed against the need to maintain accurate electoral records while ensuring that eligible citizens are not unfairly prevented from registering.

The November 17 hearing is expected to provide another opportunity for the Supreme Court to examine the allegations concerning the Election Commission’s internal decision-making and the disputed Form 6 declaration. Until then, the commission’s defence and the petitioners’ objections remain competing submissions rather than judicially established findings.

At stake is not merely a dispute over an electoral form. The case raises questions about how a constitutional institution exercises its authority, how its decisions are documented and reviewed, and how electoral administration can preserve both the integrity of voter lists and the rights of eligible citizens. The court’s eventual assessment will help clarify the legal boundaries within which these responsibilities must be discharged.